These are some great questions! I'll work through them one-by-one.
> (edit: sorry, I missed this one!) why you want to do this?
I believe in pay transparency and paying people for the value they bring to a company. I don't like it when there's a call center with everyone making a dollar above minimum wage, when they take the pain of all the poor decisions people who make 5-10x what they do made.
> What is the goal you are trying to achieve?
A greater alignment to the earnings someone makes for the company and their earnings out of the company.
> Why would you not do this with salaries?
I believe a salary is a promise, something that can be consistently relied upon. Profit sharing is above and beyond that.
> Will there be some people paid more than others that do different roles?
Since a salary is a promise, yes. It also allows for more tenured and skilled employees to "grow" in the company. Generally a more senior person has more responsibilities and my promise to them should correlate well with that.
> If so, why would their profit shares be the same?
Undecided
> Who decides on war chest size?
Probably a collection of employees, including the CEO, and it would be the sum of company expenses for a certain number of years, including cost of living adjustments.
> but what I really mean is an alternate reporting line to hear about problems
I hadn't considered that as a use of a union and I think I like it. I should think on this more.
> My suspicion is that there's a lot of what founders think of as profit that isn't really profit. (and the added part about you underpaying yourself)
Probably! In my context regarding profit sharing, I am thinking that everyone is making an appropriate salary already - before that, it's not really profit. Admittedly, given the structure, the official salary would probably be a little below market rate; but again, that's just the promise of minimum payment and when profit sharing went into full swing, I would like to think it would increase those numbers.